Civil the essay, many ethnic minorities in the

Civil disobedience is  the active, professed refusal of
a citizen to obey certain laws of the state,

 

and demands, orders, and commands of
a government, or of an occupying international power.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

Civil disobedience is sometimes
defined as having to be nonviolent to be called civil

 

disobedience. Civil disobedience is
sometimes, therefore, equated with nonviolent resistance.

 

An important role in the term of
civil disobedience had Henry David Thoreau. He was an

 

American essayist, poet, philosopher, abolitionist,
who wrote in 1849 an essay ,,Civil

 

Disobedience”. The essay has had a
wide influence on many later practitioners of this kind of

 

attitude. the main motive and idea of
civil disobedience, according to Thoreau, is to oppose a

 

government that does not care about
its citizens. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for

 

having refused to pay
taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against
the Mexican–

 

American War. Not long after the
publication of the essay, many ethnic minorities in the United

 

States, such as African Americans,
Jews, Catholics and Baptists, began to protest in the face of

 

many public practices and legal
objections that constituted social discrimination for them.

 

However, the question remains whether
the thesis posed by Henry David Thoreau are correct

 

and whether the solution given in the
attitude of civil disobedience is appropriate. I believe that

 

he was wrong on many issues and the
civil disobedience which he promotes in his essay does

 

not work for the benefit of society
and has disadvantages.

 

 

 
In his essay Thoreau wrote, “that government is best which governs
least”. This statement led

 

to another, which stated, “That
government is the best which governs not at all”. The author

 

also stressed that the government is
only a convenient compromise, which is usually

 

uncomfortable. I
believe, however, that the lack of any government is tragic for the functioning

 

of society. Man has always been a
creature who likes to gather and live in herds. Human clusters

 

from the dawn of time were ruled by
leaders who made decisions on behalf of the whole

 

community. These were not always good
decisions. On the other hand, such a system allowed

 

humanity to survive and develop. Of
course, the democratic governments that are in power

 

today in most countries on earth are
not the ideal solution to the system of exercising power,

 

but progress should be introduced
through evolution instead of revolution. Humanity has not

 

come up with a better system than
democracy, so we need to reconcile with the current reality.

 

Protesting and fighting against the
government rarely generated benefits, and even if it was

 

paid for by huge losses. There
are many examples in history, where people protested against

 

power and ended up with a
catastrophe. The most obvious event that ended in the slaughter of

 

many innocent people dates back to
over 200 years. I am referring here to the French

 

Revolution, which ended the
disastrous rule of King Louis XVI and initiated the anarchies and

 

executions of many innocent people in
France. During the revolution, 100,000 people were

 

killed. The economy of the country
was ruined, which resulted in raising taxes. The power was

 

wielded by Girondins, Jacobins and
the directorate, which proved to be cruel and more

 

devastating to France than during the
monarchy.

 

 

  Civil disobedience as an attitude towards the
government can easily get out of control. In the

 

case of the previous
example, this led to a revolution. It can also contribute to the outbreak of

 

riots. It is worth to
mention the riots of 1992 in Los Angeles. The riots
began on April 29, 1992,

 

when the jury acquitted
four white policemen accused of beating the black taxi driver Rodney

 

King, who relied while
attempting to arrest him. The case soon went to the
media and many

 

ethnic minorities living
in the USA decided to go out on the streets and protest. Protest which

 

 was to be targeted at politicians and quickly
turned out to riots. The crowd carried out thefts,

 

assaults, arson during
riots, and riots, and the damage property estimate was over $ 1 billion.

 

These were the largest
riots in the US so far. This example shows how
quickly protests are able

 

to incite the public
enough for the situation to get out of control and cause large losses. This is

 

not conducive to the
finances of the state that must cover the damage.

 

 

 
Henry David Thoreau protested against the US invasion of Mexico, slavery
and the treatment

 

of Indians. To emphasize his
opposition he decided not to pay taxes, because he decided that he

 

could not finance cases with which he
did not agree so radically. The reasons why the

 

philosopher followed the non-payment
of taxes are very understandable. Thoreau wrote, ”The

 

standing army is only an arm of the
standing government. The government itself, which is only

 

the mode which the people have chosen
to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and

 

perverted before the people can act
through it”. The American-Mexican war was something

 

that society did not want.
Nevertheless, the government declared war and even though the war

 

was won, it consumed a huge number of
dead. The war also cost a huge amount of money that

 

comes from taxes paid by citizens. Politics
towards Indian people and slavery were also not good

 

things. After all, Thoreau, as a
citizen of the United States, was obliged to pay taxes. Not doing

 

this is an unpatriotic attitude and
the government’s bad policy does not change anything. I think

 

so because the government is elected
by the public in democratic elections. I agree with the

 

opinion that democracy is not an
ideal system, because it often changes a group of people who,

 

apart from the power gained, do not
want to change anything in the lives of citizens, but only to

 

meet their needs. However,
it must be accepted that until now it is the best-performing system

 

of governance.

 

 

 
In conclusion, Henry David Thoreau was wrong about many of the issues he
made in his essay

 

on civil disobedience. Protesting
against the government often releases aggression and has a

 

bad influence on the country.
Examples are revolution, riots and many more. This does not

 

mean that the government is always
right and having your own opinion is good. However,

 

getting too involved in matters that
are not affected is pointless. It is worth noting that power in

 

a democratic state belongs also to
citizens. They take part in elections, so the bad government is

 

also guilty of a society that made
bad decisions. What’s more, many citizens do not participate

 

in the elections. For
example, the Polish case of civil disobedience is even more complicated.

 

The preservation of the external
sovereignty of the country is not possible in this case. Poland

 

belongs to the European Union from
which it is dependent today. The policy that is used in this

 

case in Poland is therefore part of
the union’s policy.